.webp)
The Patna High Court has granted bail to a 14-year-old boy accused in a case registered under the POCSO Act, overturning two earlier orders that had kept him locked up since October last year. Justice Arun Kumar Jha passed the order on June 22, 2026, while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the boy through his father.
Background Of The Case
The case goes back to a Kadamkuan police station FIR filed in 2024, where the informant accused the boy of raping her minor daughter. Police registered the case under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
The Juvenile Justice Board, Patna, assessed the boy's age and found him to be 14 years, nine months and five days old on the date of the alleged offence, and accordingly declared him a juvenile. He has been kept in an observation home since October 14, 2024.
His bail plea was first rejected by the JJ Board on March 5, 2025. He then appealed before the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Patna, but that too was dismissed on May 17, 2025. That's when he moved the High Court.
The boy's lawyer, Ajay Kumar Chakraborty, argued that the informant had given contradictory versions about where the incident took place, first saying "park" and later changing it to "park road." He also said the Social Investigation Report used to deny bail was based on guesswork, not facts.
Pointing to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the counsel argued that bail to a juvenile can only be refused if there's a real risk of the child mixing with criminals, facing danger, or if release would harm justice. He said none of these conditions were shown in this case, and that the father had given an undertaking to look after the boy properly.
The state's lawyer, Prem Kumar Jha, opposed the plea, saying the Probation Officer's report showed the boy's family lacked discipline and control, making it unsafe to send him home.
Justice Jha noted that the Social Investigation Report fell short on detail. As the order put it, the report's conclusion about a lack of family discipline came without the material to back it up.
The court also leaned on the larger spirit of the JJ Act, which treats a child's best interest as the top priority. The bench observed that "the courts are bound to see that the interest of the CICL is protected at any cost."
It further held that since the boy had no prior criminal record, and had already spent over eight months in an observation home, keeping him there any longer would work against the rehabilitative purpose of the law. The judgment noted that institutional care should only be used as a last resort, not a default response.
The High Court set aside both the JJ Board's order dated March 5, 2025, and the appellate court's order dated May 17, 2025. It directed that the boy be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000, along with two sureties of the same amount.
The court laid down two conditions one surety must be a parent, and another a relative with no criminal background who undertakes to look after the boy properly. The boy must also appear before the JJ Board on every date fixed for the trial.
With this, the criminal revision petition was allowed.
Case Details:
Case Title: XXX (through his father Ajay Kumar) vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 797 of 2025
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Decision Date: 22-06-2026
-300x169.webp)
